Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Although the project proposal has been around for over 20 years, lately the Maley Drive Extension has really begun to divide the Greater Sudbury community. On the one hand, there are those that believe Maley will single-handedly get the ore trucks off of Lasalle Blvd., and MR 35 through Blezzard Valley as well. The plan is for Maley to reduce congestion along Lasalle and the Kingway, and have large sections of the City opened up for new development.

On the other hand, there are those, like me, who believe that we are being sold one of the largest and most fiscally unsustainable infrastructure projects ever undertaken by the City. We believe that there is no need for this road, and no money in the coffers to pay for it even if there were a need. Maley Drive would represent a monumental mistake on the part of our City, and shackle taxpayers to higher property taxes to pay for a road which will largely benefit the resource sector.

I believe that people like me, who oppose Maley Drive, are probably in the minority. Certainly during the last municipal election, there were few candidates who questioned the wisdom behind the Maley Drive project. After all, this project has been on the books since before 1995, when an Environmental Assessment was carried out. It became the previous Council's number one infrastructure priority, and they started to set aside dedicated funding to finance it. Our former Mayor, Marianne Matichuk, actively sought out provincial and federal funding partners to pony up some money to help the City out.

In the recent Sudbury by-election, the Progressive Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats all said that they would fund Maley Drive. Some of these candidates cited opportunities for growth in the City should Maley be built. Only the Green Party's Dr. David Robinson, an economist, stood firmly against funding Maley Drive.

With so many seemingly onside for Maley, why listen to a complainer like me? Well, I certainly hope to provide you with some information that you may not be getting from the media, the Chamber of Commerce, and politicians (both elected and those who want to be elected). In this two part series, I hope to challenge your perceptions about Maley on the issue of costs (Part 1) and benefits (Part 2).

Scoping the Project

First off, finding out accurate information about the Maley Drive Extension project is difficult enough. From conversations that I've seen in social media, it’s clear that people are very confused about what it is that the City is intending on building. Quite often, people are confusing the Maley Drive extension with the Barrydowne extension – largely because Maley is being sold publicly as a way of reducing traffic in the Valley – something Maley might do (by providing an alternative route for ore trucks running between Garson and Levack which currently use a combination of roads including MRs 15, 80 and Radar Road), but not in the way that many people think it will (by building a new road between Notre Dame in Hanmer and Barrydowne in New Sudbury).

The City has some information about the Maley Drive project available on its website, but it’s spread out in such a way that it’s quite difficult to put the pieces together. There is an undated “Quick Facts” page, which contains a lot of unsupported feel-good statements about the benefits of Maley (unsupported in the sense that there are no attributions – there may be support for these “facts” elsewhere, but from a quick read of the Quick Facts, it’s not at all clear), along with an Overview document, also undated and unattributed, which pretty much says the same thing but has a decent map attached to it.

Of course, one should always be cautious when “Facts” – quick or otherwise - are presented about a project’s benefits, and just about everything about the costs are omitted. Upon accessing either of these undated City documents, you’ll find that you’re no further ahead in determining what the proposed construction costs are, other than to find out that “the financing for Maley Drive is largely in place”, so there’s probably no need to worry much, so why bother continuing your search? Of course, there is that statement near the end of both docs which says that the City has banked $10.5 million for the project. Oh, and it continues to budget $2.3 million a year (which works out to 20% of what it’s already accumulated). Perhaps those pesky concerns about costs aren’t so pesky after all.

How Much Does That Cost?

Just how much is this project going to cost the City? Well, that depends on what you mean by “project” and what you mean by “costs”. Let’s look at the “project” part first.

Since early 2009, the City of Greater Sudbury has had a pretty cool video available on YouTube. At last count, it had been viewed more than 10,000 times. The video takes a birds-eye look at the proposed Maley Drive project – or at least at the project as it looked back in 2009, and as it might some day look if it were ever completed.

In the west, a 4-laned Maley would intersect with MR 35 between Sudbury and Azilda in the location where the Lasalle Extension currently is. Heading west, a new section of Maley will be built north and east of Lasalle near the entrance to College Boreal (there will be a partial cloverleaf at Lasalle/Maley). Maley will continue heading northeast, crossing MR 80 north of the Notre Dame/Lasalle intersection in a cloverleaf, and continue eastward along to the existing section of Maley Drive which currently terminates at the northerly end of Barrydowne. New roundabouts will be built at an extended Montrose Avenue and at Barrydowne. Maley Drive between Barrydowne and Falconbridge – which is truly one of the worst roads in the City right now – will be upgraded, including a new roundabout at the Maley/Lansing intersection.

From Falconbridge, Maley will veer to the southeast, where a roundabout will connect it with Lasalle east of Falconbridge, and from there it will continue on southwards to the present intersection of the Kingsway with Highway 17. The idea is that Maley will become the northeast and northern sections of a ring road (with the Highway 17 by-pass forming the southeast and southwest sections – note that there are no plans for a northwestern section of the “ring” road).

But that’s not what we’re getting. At least not yet. Right now, we’re looking at something much less ambitious. Only the section between MR 35 and Falconbridge will be upgraded/built. There are no plans for pedestrian or cycling infrastructure included for the road. Indeed, gravel shoulders are currently proposed, which will force cyclists to share the road with the ore trucks, and likely slow down traffic flow.

Incredible Shrinking Costs!

Back in 2012, with anticipated costs having soared to almost $130 million for the project (up from $115 just a few years earlier in 2009), the City decided to divide the project into smaller pieces, because decision makers believed that by doing so, at least parts of the project would be more attractive to senior levels of government to fund (see: “Mammoth Maley Drive broken down into sections”, the Northern Life, August 12, 2012). It looks now like this gambit has paid off, as right before the recent provincial by-election, the Ontario Liberal government rode a white horse into town with a funding announcement (see: “Province vows to ‘fulfil” Maley funding promise”, the Northern Life, December 1, 2014).

So, with the province chipping in $26.7 million as its 1/3 share of the costs, we might be able to start getting a better handle on what those construction costs are. Add it all up and you get $80.1 million. Which is kind of interesting, because when you add up the various components that were identified for the same project area from the 2012 Northern Life article, you get $93 million.

Financing is Largely in Place

Of course, what you don’t get either way is how the City can possibly suggest that “Financing for Maley Drive is largely in place”. First off, although the province has added Maley to its list of funding priorities, this hasn’t yet been announced in any budget. Chances are that will change soon, as Sudbury will get rewarded for ‘doing the right thing’ back in early February when we elected Glenn Thibeault our MPP.

Second, the federal government hasn’t pitched in any funding yet. Until they do, it’s a complete stretch to suggest that financing is largely in place. This, too, might change should funds for Maley be included in the federal budget. With an election coming up in October, at least one Sudbury candidate has raised funding for Maley as an issue pre-budget (see: “Don’t fund Maley extension, Sudbury Green candidate tells Ottawa”, the Sudbury Star, April 15, 2015).

And finally, how about that municipal portion? The City’s website says the City has $10.5 million in the bank – which is rather short of $26.7 million. With $2.3 million being added a year, it’ll be another 7 years yet for the City to have all of its money available for this project. Or will it?

Challenging the City's Growth-Based Financing Assumptions

The City’s $2.3 million is coming largely from levies under the development charges by-law. Put aside for the moment whether you think this is a good use of development charges (I don’t), and let’s just assess whether it’s sustainable. With only modest development forecast over the next little while, and fears of an economic downturn and/or recession which is likely going to impact commodity prices, it’s not at all clear that the City is going to be on track to meet expectations regarding development charges.

Further, last year, City Council voted not to increase the charges after an acrimonious and confusing discussion about the by-law (see: “Sudbury development charges frozen for two years”, CBC News, June 11, 2014). The Sudbury and District Home Builders Association got in on the act, lobbying council to hold or reduce the charges, and during the municipal election, they invited all municipal candidates to come out and hear the Association’s thoughts on development charges. Throughout the municipal election campaign, many candidates – including a good number which were elected – expressed their opposition to development charges, with some saying Greater Sudbury should do what other jurisdictions in Ontario have already done: get rid of them all together (Greater Sudbury is one of a very few municipalities in all of Northern Ontario which levies charges under the Development Charges Act. It’s also one of the few municipalities in Northern Ontario which is experiencing growth).

You can read one candidate’s thoughts on the Maley Drive extension and the use of development charges to fund the City’s share at Robert Kirwan’s Valley East Todaywebsite. Kirwan clearly gave a lot of thought to Maley pre-election day, concluding that the “project will never be completed” due to a lack of funding (he was also one of the candidates who wanted to scrap development charges – a move which would almost certainly make his belief a reality. Candidate Kirwan won the election, and he now sits at the Council table for Ward 5. While he doesn’t appear to have changed his mind on development charges, he’s been singing a completely different tune lately on Maley. More on that in Part 2 of this blogseries.

Anyway, given what’s going on in the City with development charges, it’s not at all clear to me that this funding source is sustainable, and that we’ll make up the remainder of our $16.2 million in 7 years in order to chip in our one-third share. Yet the City insists that “the financing for Maley Drive is largely in place”.

Higher Future Costs?

And of course, none of this takes into account what might happen if the costs are higher in the future than they are now. Remember, back in 2009 the costs of the project stood at $115 million for the entirety of the Maley ring-road. Those costs jumped to almost $130 million in just three years. Typically, cost estimates don’t go down – although that’s what appears to have happened between 2012 when the sectionalized Maley was presented to Council with a total price tag of $193 million, versus the 2014 estimate of just $80.1 million.

Does anybody really trust any of these numbers?

Whether they’re trustful or not, what’s clear is that the federal and provincial funding partners won’t be the ones left on the hook to pay for anything more than they’re chipping in. If costs ultimately exceed estimates, it will be the City that has to pick up the bill. Municipal property tax payers will be on the hook for any cost increases.

But don’t worry. The City has it all figured out. “Financing is largely in place”.

Planning Ahead for Roads

How much will this new road add to the City’s operating budget annually? Some are already asking that question. The road has to be plowed, after all. And pot holes have to be filled in (potholes on a new road? Well, we are ostensibly building this road to get those heavy ore trucks off of Lasalle, right? And this IS Sudbury – I think it’s fair to say that there will be potholes). Certainly, annual operating costs won’t be as expensive as initial capital costs to build the road, but the operating costs will be borne exclusively by property taxpayers. The City isn’t looking at any alternative funding models, despite the City’s own Transportation Plan (2005) having suggested that it do so (see Recommendations, No. 12 – “Negotiate cost sharing agreements with major industries when these industries will benefit from the transportation improvement being implemented”, Transportation Background Study 2005, page E12).

Well, maybe there’s something about those operational costs in the Transportation Background Study too. There sure is. Another recommendation was for the City to develop an asset management strategy for lifecycle costing of roads (see page E3). In 2012, KPMG provided the City with a report, “Financial Planning for Municipal Roads, Structures and Related Infrastructure”, which looked at the City’s current roads-related infrastructure deficit based on anticipated capital and operating expenditures for the existing and funded roads network. Note that on Page 10 of this report, Maley Drive is identified as an “unfunded” road (to the tune of $94 million – but again, costs were higher in 2012 than they are today, right?).

(Note that the Transportation Background Study 2005 is in the process of being updated as part of the City’s 5-year Official Plan Review. The original intention was to have the new Transportation Plan available to the public for comment in 2013. As of April, 2015, the plan has not been released, and decision-makers and the public will have to rely on outdated data which is more than 10 years old now)

Our Fiscally Unsustainable Future for Roads in Greater Sudbury

You may be interested to know that KPMG expressed some pretty serious concerns about the long-term sustainability of the existing road system in Greater Sudbury. In 2012, capital and operating costs were at $75 million annually for the entire road system – all 3,600 lane kilometres. However, in 2012, the City was only spending $35 million on roads. With costs outpacing investments, a significant gap between the two already existed, and KPMG recommended the adoption of a financial plan that would see the gap narrowed over a period of ten years, during which annual expenditures would rise from $35 million to $75 million. To cover these additional expenditures, the municipal tax levy would need to increase between 3.3% to 3.5% every year. This plan includes only existing roads and one significant new piece of infrastructure: Maley Drive.

Clearly, there's a problem here. Greater Sudbury has already fallen behind with capital and operating expenditures needed to maintain the existing road system in good shape. A recommendation of an annual tax increase of 3%+ for roads alone is simply not going to fly with voters, no matter how much the need stares us in the face daily. This year, our new Council raided the reserves in order to gift Sudburians with a 0% tax increase. In light of the drastic measures KPMG recommended our decision-makers take regarding roads, 0% appears to be completely unhelpful, with or without Maley Drive.

A New Way Forward Needed

What's clear is that Greater Sudbury has to find a new way forward. I don't know what that way is – maybe user fees of some sort - but it's clear that for too long we've been leading a fiscally unsustainable existence – putting today's costs on the backs of tomorrow's citizens. That would mean that the costs of the benefits we are reaping today are being passed on to our children – those same children that we are trying to entice to stick around our fair City. To me, handing our kids the bill seems a strange strategy to help stem youth out-migration in our region.

Some have suggested that the way forward is dependent on growth. That certainly seems to be Mayor Brian Bigger's strategy (see: “Greater Sudbury needs to grow its economy”, the Sudbury Star, January 20, 2015). Unfortunately, relying on growth to cover capital and operating costs is a dead-end, especially for a community like Greater Sudbury where growth is projected to be limited over the next while. Even for cities which experienced considerable growth, like Mississauga, growth itself ends up contributing more towards a fiscally unsustainable circumstance. And of course, Mississauga invested in one of the most costly forms of growth available for a municipality to service: suburban sprawl.

Yet, the lessons which decision-makers should have learned from the Mississauga experience have yet to seriously affect the mindset of many municipal decision-makers. Many still delude themselves by insisting that growth more than pays for itself, when it is now obvious that the exact opposite is true.

Regarding Maley Drive, which won't facilitate any growth at all in our community, what is abundantly clear is that the expense of this road project simply can't be justified at this time – not for the sake of getting the ore trucks off of Lasalle, nor for the sake of shaving a few minutes of time off of the evening commute. The costs of this new project aren't ones which taxpayers can absorb. Our City has failed to look at alternative funding models which may assist somewhat with defraying costs. Contributions from the provincial and federal governments will only lock us into making a truly unwise, unsustainable decision to build a road that we don't need and can't afford, for growth which isn't expected to happen (there will be more on growth in Part 2 of this series).

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Of course New Democrats, generally speaking, aren’t climate
change deniers. After all, this is the
Party that introduced the Climate Change Accountability Act, which was adopted
by our elected officials in Parliament in, but met its death in the
Conservative-dominated Senate (since then, the NDP has re-introduced the bill). The NDP has long called for a reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, although they’ve
never offered a cohesive plan on how to accomplish that task. The Party has also quietly supported a price
on carbon, if not a “job-killing” carbon tax.

But these are all vestiges left over from the old NDP, pre
Thomas-Mulcair, back when the NDP was concerned with at least appearing to have
a principled stance on issues of importance, even if those issues weren’t
popular with voters.

What has the NDP been doing lately with climate change?

Expanding the Tar Sands

Supporters and others who might not be paying close
attention to this issue will be surprised to discover that despite the NDP
still occasionally talking a good game on climate change, the policies it now
pushes run directly counter to the actions Canada needs to take to meaningfully
reduce emissions. NDP supporters will be
particularly surprised to discover that Mulcair’s New NDP, motivated far more
by obtaining power than taking a principled stand, has decided instead to
embrace the expansion of the Alberta tar sands. This stance is despite the knowledge that
doing so will surely doom Canada’s ability to meet our incredibly woeful 2020
emissions reduction target we agreed to in Copenhagen back in 2009.

And it will certainly mean that the NDP’s own target of 80%
below 1990 emissions levels will never be met – not with an industrial
enterprise which plans on more than doubling its production, from its current
output of slightly less than 2 million barrels of oil per day to more than 5.1
million barrels per day by 2030 (see: Alberta Energy, Facts and Statistics).

NDP: Playing Pipeline Politics

There was a time not all that long ago when the NDP came out
in opposition to some of the largest pipeline projects currently on the
books. Certainly, the NDP has
consistently opposed both Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline and the
TransCanada's Keystone XL – although opposition to both of these pipelines has
never really been about climate change.
Environmental and First Nations concerns led the NDP to oppose Gateway,
while exporting jobs to the United States seems to be the NDP's central
rationale for opposing Keystone.

But back in 2013, New Democrats seemingly also opposed
Kinder Morgan's proposed Trans Mountain pipeline, which would see an existing
pipeline route twinned to carry diluted bitumen to the Port of Vancouver, and
diluents needed for dilbit transport flow the other way, to Alberta. Of course, the opposition was a provincial
position, adopted by then B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix in the midst of an
election campaign – and again, climate change really wasn't the central concern
raised by the Party (it had more to do with tankers plying the waters off the
coast of Vancouver – a legitimate issue which I'm in no way to trying to
belittle – I just note that Dix's opposition wasn't about expanding the tar
sands or limiting climate change).

In fact, it wasn’t entirely clear to most paying attention
that the NDP actually opposed Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline at all,
but rather just the location of the pipeline’s terminus. Some NDP candidates floated alternative
locations for the pipeline’s port during the election campaign, significantly
muddying the waters of the NDP’s actual position on Trans Mountain. Eventually, Dix had to tell voters that he
was against oil tankers off of B.C.’s coast, period – which many (including
myself) have equated with an anti-pipeline stance, perhaps erroneously (see: “Dix says oil tanker stance applies towhole region”, Eric Swanson, Burnaby Pipeline Watch, April 27, 2013).

"Not Supporting, Not Opposing"

Whether or not Dix was against the pipeline or just the
tankers, after Dix lost the provincial election in a rather astounding manner,
the NDP quietly changed its ways on Trans Mountain. Now, both the B.C. Provincial and the federal
NDP neither oppose or support the new pipeline.
Many environmental organizations
view this as a clear step backwards, on both the issue of climate change and
tanker traffic. These groups argue that
it would be relatively easy for the NDP to oppose Trans Mountain if it were
really concerned about either issue. But
“not opposing” seems to be the order of the day.

That seems to be what the NDP is now saying about
TransCanada's Energy East pipeline now, too.
After about a year's worth of general unqualified support for Energy
East, a pipeline which Leader Tom Mulcair is convinced will create jobs in Quebec
and the Maritimes, despite evidence to the contrary (see “Mulcair sticks withpipeline policy as report challenges Energy East”, the Globe and Mail, February
6, 2014), the NDP has slowly started shifting its position on the
pipeline. And again, this shift has
nothing to do with climate change.
Instead, it has everything to do with the NDP's focus on obtaining
power.

Energy East - the Quebec Perception

You see, Energy East isn't all that popular in Quebec. In that province, environmental activists and
every-day citizens have expressed significant concerns regarding the route of
the pipeline, as well as the export terminal which TransCanada proposed to be
built at Cacouna – right in the midst of beluga habitat (see, “GabrielNadeau-Dubois must reject Energy East to win QC seats”, CBC News, March 19,
2015). If the NDP isn't particularly concerned about one student's point of view, they do tend to be swayed by polls - and a recent one shows that 71% of Quebecers favour protecting the environment over the energy east pipeline (see: "61% of Canadians say protecting the climate more important than pipelines and tar sands"the Climate Action Network, April 7, 2015).

To the NDP's credit, the Party never supported the export
terminal at Cacouna because of the beluga.
But this was hardly a brave position for the NDP to adopt, given that
even Alberta Progressive Conservative Premier Jim Prentice also came out in
favour of protecting beluga (see: “Energy East must be kept away from belugas,Quebec and Alberta premiers say”, the Globe and Mail, December 2, 2014). With everyone opposed to the marine facility,
or at least in favour of not hurting belugas, TransCanada finally amended its
proposal and dropped the Cacouna port idea all together (see: “TransCanadadelays Energy East, won’t build Quebec oil terminal”, the Globe and Mail, April
2, 2015).

Nevertheless, the NDP’s opposition to the marine export
terminal at Cacouna was the first wedge the Party drove into its unqualified
support of Energy East. Climate change
would soon follow, after national outcries were raised that the National Energy
Board would not be considering upstream impacts from pipeline development in
its assessment. It's being suggested that there's a "civil war" going on in the NDP caucus over the issue of climate change and pipelines (

Moving the NDP to consider climate change impacts was a bit
of a process. Originally, the NDP
refused to discuss climate change in the context of pipelines – at least the
ones which it supported or took no position on, like Energy East and Trans
Mountain (see “Greenwashing on Climate Change Starting to Take a Toll on NDP“,
Sudbury Steve May, November 4, 2014). Of
course, that didn't stop NDP candidate Joe Cressy from hypocritically attacking
Liberal Adam Vaughan during the Trinity Spadina by-election (Vaughan's Liberal
Party supports Keystone XL – Cressy was unimpressed that the Liberals were
supporting a pipeline which would lead to the expansion of the tar sands and
contribute to climate change – despite that his party at that time supported
Energy East outright and had taken no position on Trans Mountain – see, “NDPslams Adam Vaughan for missing climate debate”, NOW Magazine, June 18, 2014).

Essentially, the NDP’s position on pipelines has is that they
don't support any of them, but they take no position on Trans Mountain or
Energy East. Interestingly, the NDP have
been trying to spin their lack of position on Energy East by claiming that
they’ve never had a position, which is a complete denial of the reality of the
past two years. (see, “10 questions for NDP energy critic Guy Caron aboutEnergy East”, Ethan Cox, Ricochet Media, April 12, 2015).

The NDP and the NEB

Based on the above, it might appear that the NDP now
supports a National Energy Board process which requires an assessment of
climate change impacts. But pinning the NDP down on climate change has been a
really slippery proposition over the last several years. Let’s not yet leap to the conclusion that the
NDP wants to the NEB to evaluate climate change impacts, even though the NEB is
the agency responsible for the pipeline’s evaluation. Although the NDP made the link between Energy
East and climate change in a press release, we can’t conclude that the NDP is
yet ready to call on the NEB to consider climate change impacts.

Of course, the NEB has no mandate to assess the climate
change impacts of any pipeline (see: “It’s taboo to talk climate change atNEB’s Energy East hearings”, Obert Mandondo, the Canadian Progressive, March 6,
2015). The assessment process which
informs the NEB's recommendations to government may include looking at the
economic impacts of development the tar sands, but it can't look at how
expanding the enterprise may negatively impact the Earth's climate – as absurd
as that sounds.

The NDP know of the NEB’s limiations, of course. Maybe that’s why they’re not calling on the
NEB to evaluate climate impacts. Of
course, if a party were serious about having climate change impacts considered,
it would sort of kind of make sense to suggest that it be the NEB which does
the evaluation in order to better inform its decision.

Pro-Climate or Pro-Pipelines: NDP Wants to be Both

But the NDP continues to dither. They now want climate impacts to be
considered for pipelines, but they won’t ask the NEB to do it. Yet, if climate impacts were included in any
evaluation, environmentalists rightly believe that those impacts will outweigh
any other merits of pipeline development, and decision makers will have to say
No to proposals (see: “Newsweek: Canada’s tar sands at risk of becoming astranded asset”, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, February
26, 2015). If the NDP really wants
climate change impacts to be considered for pipelines, why is the NDP so very
reluctant to state its position?

Probably because the NDP doesn't at all like the logic map
that it's been drawn into by their attempt to win votes in Quebec and address
the criticism of environmentalists. The
NDP wants to maintain the facade that they're not against the pipelines,
because they are concerned that every-day voters who continue to believe that
Canada's economic salvation lies in developing the oil sands won't vote for a
party which puts up barriers to expansion.
Maybe they're right, politically speaking. But they're playing a very disingenuous and
dangerous game.

Those serious about climate change know full well that you can't be both pro-pipeline and pro-climate. The two are mutually exclusive. The NDP doesn't seem to understand this yet, or if they do, they are keeping it to themselves until after the next election.

NDP Attacking Climate Champions

Lately, the NDP has upped the stakes by directly levelling
criticism at Elizabeth May and the Green Party of Canada – which is currently
polling around 16% in the anticipated British Columbia electoral
battleground. Mulcair has gone on the
attack, trying to confuse voters by mischaracterizing the Green Party’s
position on pipelines. “Anybody who is that adamant would have to complete
their thought and say we should get rid of existing pipelines”, Mulcair said to
Vancouver media when asked about May’s opposition to current pipeline proposals
(see: “Tom Mulcair fights the squeeze inMetro Vancouver ridings”, the Vancouver Sun, March 17, 2015). Of course, May and the Greens aren’t
proposing to remove existing pipelines, no matter how much Tom Mulcair and the
NDP want voters to think they are.

Playing the fear card is something that the NDP is very good
at. Elsewhere, NDP supporters are
claiming that only the NDP can knock off Harper, so voting Green or Liberal
equates to a vote for the Conservatives (see: “Leaders target B.C. to gainseats in 2015 election”, the Huffington Post, March 19, 2015). And lately on social
media, sanctimonious NDP supporters and a few NDP staffers have been crying
foul that the Green Party dares contest the election in the Victoria riding at
all, because they believe that MP Murray Rankin should be sainted as a champion
of the environment (for a sample, see comments to: “Greens going after NDP inVictoria ‘with all we got’: party president”, ipolitics, April 10, 2015). As long as Rankin toes his party line on
expanding the tar sands and building more pipelines, I think Green Party of
Canada President David Bagler is right – he’s fair game.

May and the Green Party wear opposition to new pipelines as
a badge of honour, because if you're serious about climate change, you know
full well that we're going to have to leave over two thirds of the world's
known fossil reserves locked in the ground.
And the dirtiest fossil fuels, like tar sands bitumen, will likely need
to be left interred at a higher rate.
Simply put, if all of the carbon is burned, we can kiss anything
resembling today's climate good-bye within the next couple of generations (see:
“Oil sands must remain largely unexploited to meet climate target, studyfinds”, the Globe and Mail, January 7, 2015).

The NDP: Naive on Carbon Sequestration

Clearly, the NDP hasn’t yet got that memo. “We are not so naïve to think we can leave
our resources in the ground forever”, NDP MP Jinny Sims (Surrey-Newton) was
quoted as saying to Vancouver media in response to questions about Energy East
(see: “Mulcair says a flawed regulatory process hinders Energy East reviewprocess”, the Vancouver Observer, March 19, 2015). I’m not willing to tar the
entire New Democratic Party with Sims’ comments, so I’ll limit my observations
to this: does Simms really think that people like Bank of England Governor Mark
Carney are being “naïve” when they warn of the economic risks associated with a
carbon bubble brought on by resource sequestration? (see: “The latest on the
environment carbon bubble issue”, the Australian Solar Network, March 28,
2015).

On the one hand, the NDP claims to be concerned about
climate change and want the climate impacts of pipeline proposals assessed
(just maybe not by the NEB) – even though they know full well that expanding
tar sands production will negatively impact the climate. On the other hand, they refuse to take a
position on the two biggest pipelines being proposed – Energy East and Trans
Mountain – out of fear of appearing to be anti-development.

NDP Using Tactics of Climate Change Deniers

The NDP's “principled” position on pipelines now appears to
be the same one used by climate change deniers when they urge inaction on the
climate. In an interview earlier this
week, NDP energy critic Guy Caron twisted himself into a pretzel claiming that
the NDP needs more time to study impacts (see, “10 questions for NDP energycritic Guy Caron about Energy East”, Ethan Cox, Ricochet Media, April 12,
2015). The party line appears to be that it would be irresponsible to adopt a
position until all the fact are known – and by extension, those other parties
which have already taken a position are being irresponsible – which is all very
reminiscent of what some tea-party republicans have started to say in the
States about climate change.

This may buy the NDP some time and get them through the next
election, if their assertions about the science are left unchallenged. It all sounds reasonable, sure, especially with
the NEB's evaluations on-going (and not expected to finish up until sometime
after October, 2015). But the reality is
quite different.

Wait Until the Science is In

First of all, the facts are well known. If production in the tar sands is going to
more than double by 2030 – which is the current plan – then new pipeline
capacity is needed. And the pipelines
are only needed if production is going to expand. The two go together. So arguing that pipelines won't lead to
expansion as some in the NDP have tried to do is just beyond any semblance of
logic. Even the NDP has kiboshed those
talking points. Now, the Party just
remains silent on the issue, hoping that by ignoring it, it will go away. Kind of like what they've traditionally done
with the Green Party. They'll have about
as much success ignoring tar sands expansion, too.

Can't Stop the Tar Sands

Second, it is also well known that if we are going to hold
warming at two degrees Celsius, two thirds of known global carbon reserves will
need to be left in the ground (see: “Leave fossil fuels buried to preventclimate change, study urges” the Guardian, January 7, 2015). We can’t hold warming at 2 degrees and burn
known reserves. Yet the NDP wants to
pretend otherwise. It is their goal to
get bitumen to tidewater – or to refineries .
Either way, the NDP tacitly acknowledges that the tar sands reserves
will be burned. They even want to try to
use profits from the tar sands to expand renewable energy initiatives (see:
“Our new vision for a new Century. Our plan for a prosperous and sustainableenergy future”, NDP, December 14, 2013) – which can only be described as a
surreal energy plan from the perspective of limiting climate change.

Can't Make a Decision Because the Process is Flawed

And finally, the NDP knows that the science it claims to be
waiting for isn't going to appear as part of the NEB process – which then
should mean that it would be very easy to oppose the pipelines for a lack of
scientific validity (as the Green Party has done) – but of course, the NDP again
wants to pretend otherwise. NDP energy
critic Guy Caron has hinted that the NDP might be taking a position of some
sort before the end of spring, but likely whatever position the NDP ultimately
takes on pipelines, it won’t be due to climate change concerns.

NDP: Insincerity on Climate Change & the NEB

How sincere is the NDP being with regards to climate change
impacts and pipeline assessments? Interestingly, NDP MP Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley
Valley) has a private member's bill in front of the house in which changes to
the NEB's assessment process are proposed.
It's a great bill for what it is – Cullen wants the NEB to assess tanker
traffic impacts, and to undertake meaningful consultation with First Nations
where pipelines are proposed.

One might think that if the NDP were sincere about having
the climate change impacts of new pipeline projects evaluated, it would insist
that the NEB review those impacts. One
might think that since the NDP has a bill in front of the house to amend the
way in which the NEB assesses pipeline proposals, that there might be something
about climate change in that bill. While
one might think that, clearly the opposite is true (see: Bill C-628, Text atFirst Reading, September 23, 2014).

NDP: Unprincipled Position on Climate Change

All of this brings me back to my original questions. Why is the NDP behaving like climate change
deniers on pipeline proposals? Why are they putting politics over principle?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's
probably a duck. When it comes to
climate change, pipelines, energy policy and the National Energy Board, despite
the NDP's protestations to the contrary about their interest in climate change
impacts, it's abundantly clear that the NDP is trying to perpetuate a fraud on
Canadian voters.

If the NDP should form government, what is clear is that
going forward, the plan will remain the same: build pipelines, develop the tar
sands and pay lip service to serious action on climate change – exactly what
the Liberals and Conservatives before have done. And that's not what Canada needs.

But instead of changing course and developing a meaningful position
on climate change, the NDP chooses to slag politicians like Elizabeth May and
parties like the Greens which have actually taken a critical look at the issue,
and which stand up for the climate and economy each and every day, no matter
what voters might think. In short, instead
of taking a principled stand on climate change like the Greens do, the NDP has
decided to play games with the most important issue of our time, while
obstructing real action.

Shame on the NDP.
Canada deserves better.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Canada’s 13 provincial and territorial premiers are
gathering in Quebec City on April 14th to discuss a co-ordinated
approach to take action on climate change.
For those concerned about the anticipated impacts of climate change on
our economy, this initiative sounds like it might be a positive step forward by
our subnational levels of government.

It would be prudent to hold the applause.

Whatever progress made by provincial leaders in Quebec is
likely to be put at risk from another agreement made by the very same
provincial and territorial premiers. Last
fall in Charlottetown, under the guise of the Council of the Federation, the
premiers announced a provisional Canadian Energy Strategy. According to the premier’s public relations
people, the new strategy will facilitate fossil fuel resource expansion, while
considering climate change impacts. “Greener”
bitumen pipelines – whatever those are – will be the order of the day (see: “Premiers tout their own national energy strategy”, the Toronto Star, August 29, 2014).

Greenpeace Canada’s Mike Hudema called the premiers out on
this ploy. “A pan-provincial climate deal that greenlights tar sands expansion
is a complete non-starter to any serious climate discussion,” Hudema wrote
recently on the Tar Sands Solution Network’s website as part of a call for a
citizen mobilization later this month in Quebec City (see: “Provincialenergy-climate agreement cannot trade climate for tar sands pipelines”, Tar
Sands Solutions, March 27, 2015).

Hudema is right. The expansion
of the tar sand, facilitated by new pipeline development, is incompatible with
holding warming at 2 degrees Celsius.
Studies have shown that most of the world’s known fossil fuel reserves
must stay in the ground if we are going to have a good chance to keep warming
below the 2 degrees C threshold nations pledged to honour in 2009 in
Copenhagen.

A recent study published in the journal Nature indicates
that as much as 85% of the Alberta’s proven tar sands reserves – which contain some
of the world’s dirtiest oil – will need
to stay in the ground (see: “Oil sands must remain largely unexploited to meetclimate target, study finds”, the Globe and Mail, January 7, 2015). Of course, sequestering reserves as unburnable
carbon is completely at odds with Alberta’s plan to more than double production
by 2030, from current levels of around 2 million barrels a day to 5.2
million. That plan calls for extra
capacity to move the bitumen. Hence the numerous pipeline proposals, including
TransCanada’s Energy East – a pipeline which would move over 1.1 million
barrels of bitumen a day from Alberta to ports in Quebec and New Brunswick,
where most of it will be loaded onto tankers and shipped overseas for
value-added refining (see: “Energy East pipeline boon for refineries an ‘emptypromise’ because most oil will go overseas: Report”, the Financial Post, March
18, 2014).

Although the fossil energy sector may be frightened by the idea of sequestering carbon reserves, there
really is no reconciling the needs of the planet with the notion that
industrial society can continue to burn vast quantities of fossil fuels for our
energy needs. If we are to take the
threat of climate change seriously, the only responsible option is to
aggressively switch to renewable energy.

A real national energy strategy would focus on how Canada
will manage phasing out fossil energy, while making the switch to renewables. It would provide carbon budgets for
provincial governments, established strong targets to reduce emissions, and put
a price on carbon pollution.

It would not promote building pipelines under the guise of a
taking action on climate change.

Of course, with past Council of the Federation meetings
having been sponsored by pipeline-builder TransCanada (see: Canada’s Premiers,55th Annual Premiers Conference – page down for list of sponsors),
it seems unlikely that current premiers will put the health of our economy and
the Earth’s climate ahead of short-term profits for fossil resource companies.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)